Anime, Hentai, Manga, Bishoujo Games, Live Action Films, Music, Art, and Erotic Doujinshi Discussion Forum

It is currently December 15th, 2017, 6:41 pm


All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Batman-The Movies
PostPosted: February 6th, 2010, 8:55 pm 
Offline
Lurker
User avatar

Joined: November 12th, 2009, 7:24 am
Posts: 69
Location: Берлин
Batman is Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton), a millionaire whose parents were killed by a mobster. His butler Alfred (Michael Gough) has taken care of him since, and Bruce has become a decent guy who starts fighting crime in the city of Gotham under the guise of Batman.
Meanwhile, we have Alexander Knox (Robert Wuhl), an intrepid yet sort-of-discredited reporter who, alongside Vicky Vale (Kim Basinger), a renowned photograph, trying to cover the rumors that a vigilante is striking in town, mainly as a professional goal which would earn them a Pullitzer.
Vale meets Wayne in a party, and from there on, trouble begins after Batman doesn't prevent Jack Napier (Jack Nicholson), second-in-command in Carl Grissom's gang, to fall into a pond of chemicals after having his face torn by accident. This transforms Napier into a disfigured freak who has always a smile on his face, and who starts wreaking havoc in Gotham. Of course, that's the Joker we all know and love. The Joker wreaks havoc in Gotham and Batman has to stop him.

That's the premise of 1989's Batman, directed by Tim Burton. It is indeed promising, particularly with Jack Nicholson in yet another loony role like those who fit him so well, and with the beautiful Kim Basinger bringing the eye candy. However, it's been a disappointment.

Again, the actor playing Batman has the curse of seeming completely irrelevant in the movie, and Michael Keaton is not an exception. There are some who say that Kevin Conroy, the man who has been interpreting him as a voice actor in most of Batman's animated and videogame material, should have starred at least once in a live-action movie. And I believe it's right, as when Conroy is there, Batman becomes a protagonist himself. Here, like in the current series directed by Christopher Nolan, he seems more a plot device than a character of his own, used to give spotlight to the magnificient villain of the time (the Jokers, Catwoman and Penguin, or Mr. Freeze in the infamous Batman and Robin).
Jack Nicholson, on his side, gives the strongest performance by far, and scenes like
Spoiler
his "courting" of Vicky Vale
do really make his "evil and clowny" Joker work. Vicky Vale is OK, too, though I would have preferred that
Spoiler
she didn't discover Batman's identity
. Alex Knox is simply wasted, he could have sparked much more plot than he does, e.g he could have turned into a supervillain at the end or something. Things as they are, he just becomes a project of sympathetic character who doesn't get enough attention.

The plot starts with thrilling and interesting points (like Napier being a vengeful mobster), but the ending seems really forced, not serious. The church scene in its wholeness is ridiculous, and not only because
Spoiler
you see Jack Nicholson and Kim Basinger dancing like birdies, which is the good definition of "ridiculous"
, but because it seems like they had no other way in order to give the ending they wanted to give. Aside of that, it seems that they didn't take it as seriously as they should have. If one sees the more realistic obscureness of the first animated series or the Nolan saga this script pales in comparison.

In essence, a decent, watchable movie with nice aesthetic work, great acting and under-average plot.

_________________
СИРИЛИК АЛФАБЕТ ФТВ!!!
Image


Last edited by Libertista on February 14th, 2010, 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Batman (1989)
PostPosted: February 10th, 2010, 6:02 pm 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
I liked the first two movies for them being, well, dark and gothic.
Imho Michael Keaton did a great job, although I did not quite like his hairstyle. :lol:
And while Nicholson has the skill to play a personality like the Joker he definitely lacks the physical appearance... I remember the Joker in the comic books being a tall and slim creature, whereas Nicholson is tall and somewhat pudgy. That's my big minus in that movie.

I think your argument about the vigilante protagonist just highlighting the bad guys is very valid. Maybe that is a legacy from the live action series, I heard that lots of people, well known actors, queued up to play Batman's opponent-of-the-week or something.

It might also be due to the spotlight function of a movie. A movie adapted from a long-running comic series, no matter how long, can never be long enough to depict more than a single episode, a piece cut out of the protagonists life, therefore there's more focus on action and less or no focus on the character. In fact you need the character information from the primary source in order to fully enjoy the movie, because the movie is not able to provide that. If you do not know the "printed background" of such adaptations of long running series, anything they give you can only be shallow. Adaptations are made for people who already are fans, imho they'll hardly manage to create new fans.

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Batman (1989)
PostPosted: February 10th, 2010, 6:52 pm 
Offline
Major Contributor

Joined: July 6th, 2009, 4:06 pm
Posts: 1427
Location: Ocean's 14th
I never liked the concept of Bruce Wayne wearing glasses, for the record. :? He obviously doesn't need them and while they're for show, they tend to downplay his playboy image. :| That and the fact that he needed a more interesting hairstyle aside, he did a brilliant performance of Batman in his two outings. :d^_^b:

Jack Nicholson as the Joker definitely gave the character a sense of menace, all body image jabs aside. And while his Joker wasn't as psycho as Heath Ledger's was two decades later, one did tend to be afraid to be near him because you never knew if he might turn around and shoot you for whatever little reason. Poor Bob found that out the hard way :mrgreen: ...

I always loved the moment where Bruce goes to the place where his parents were killed and puts flowers there. Definitely a moment where one felt sincerely bad for what happened to him and knowing that it was that moment that ultimately made him into the Dark Knight. I believe that Joe Chill was always the Wayne parents' killer even in the comics canon, but personally i never was opposed to the decision to make the Joker the one who did the deed since it definitely gave the whole Batman/Joker battle more of a personal edge. I'll probably be nailed to the wall for this one but i never even knew who Joe Chill was until i saw Batman Begins... *Waiting for the hardcore fans to grill me over that little detail.*


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Batman (1989)
PostPosted: February 11th, 2010, 2:50 pm 
Offline
Lurker
User avatar

Joined: November 12th, 2009, 7:24 am
Posts: 69
Location: Берлин
42317 wrote:
I liked the first two movies for them being, well, dark and gothic.
Imho Michael Keaton did a great job, although I did not quite like his hairstyle. :lol:
And while Nicholson has the skill to play a personality like the Joker he definitely lacks the physical appearance... I remember the Joker in the comic books being a tall and slim creature, whereas Nicholson is tall and somewhat pudgy. That's my big minus in that movie.

I think your argument about the vigilante protagonist just highlighting the bad guys is very valid. Maybe that is a legacy from the live action series, I heard that lots of people, well known actors, queued up to play Batman's opponent-of-the-week or something.

It might also be due to the spotlight function of a movie. A movie adapted from a long-running comic series, no matter how long, can never be long enough to depict more than a single episode, a piece cut out of the protagonists life, therefore there's more focus on action and less or no focus on the character. In fact you need the character information from the primary source in order to fully enjoy the movie, because the movie is not able to provide that. If you do not know the "printed background" of such adaptations of long running series, anything they give you can only be shallow. Adaptations are made for people who already are fans, imho they'll hardly manage to create new fans.

I am one of your "hardly" cases :P. I went to watch The Dark Knight like 3 weeks after its coming to theaters. Everyone was saying it was so absolutely incredible, so I, not exactly a moviegoer, went one evening to see what the fuzz was all about. And the fuzz was right. So right that, after watching the movie, I started collecting the prestige albums of the Caped Crusader... and additionally, other Western comics, while I hadn't shown any interest on them before. Titles like Batman: Black and White, a collection of short stories about him, came to me. I still resent a bit the fact that I couldn't get to acquire The Dark Knight Returns, one of the most Batman-centered flicks, in Spain before I came here :(

I see your point that the spotlight must remain in the bad guys though. The standard Bruce Wayne is too cool (rich, sexy, clever, powerful and edgy) to become someone interesting to write about.

Quote:
He obviously doesn't need them and while they're for show, they tend to downplay his playboy image.

It must be said that, at least in this film, his playboy image is just plainly ignored. He gets more the victim image than the conqueror. However, when you have this reasonable resemblance, you ought to pay heed to the facts.

Image
Image

(The first guy is a Spanish soccer coach, we sometimes make jokes about how they look like)

Now I wonder, if you were an actor, who would you like to portray in a Batman flick? My first answer would be Two-Face, but adding a trans-edge to Harley Quinn is tempting... The Joker doesn't care anyways.

_________________
СИРИЛИК АЛФАБЕТ ФТВ!!!
Image


Last edited by Libertista on February 11th, 2010, 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Batman (1989)
PostPosted: February 11th, 2010, 3:58 pm 
Offline
Major Contributor

Joined: July 6th, 2009, 4:06 pm
Posts: 1427
Location: Ocean's 14th
The second image does not work... :sweat:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Batman (1989)
PostPosted: February 11th, 2010, 6:25 pm 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
G-Core wrote:
I never liked the concept of Bruce Wayne wearing glasses, for the record. :? He obviously doesn't need them and while they're for show, they tend to downplay his playboy image.

Objection. Glasses do not impede a guy's good looks much while making him appear more intellectual. Looking intelligent is a win factor. :mrgreen:

Libertista wrote:
I am one of your "hardly" cases :P.

Most peculiar. :D
On a sidenote, I only became interested in Superhero comics after I discovered crossovers (e.g. Batman-Carnage-Spiderman-Joker in an issue the title of which I forgot) and protagonist slayings (A Death in the Family, Death of Superman, Knightfall).

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Batman-The Movies
PostPosted: February 14th, 2010, 4:03 pm 
Offline
Lurker
User avatar

Joined: November 12th, 2009, 7:24 am
Posts: 69
Location: Берлин
I've decided to make a cycle through all the Batman live action movies. While I still need to find the one from the 60's, I'm not hurrying it as I still have stuff to watch.

So, next comes Batman Returns, which came to cinemas in 1992.

Image

33 years before the present, a child born in a wealthy family was so hideous that his parents decided to throw him away in the sewers, hoping that the child dies. However, it is not the case, and the child came to a lair of penguins. From her side, a helpless woman called Selina Kyle (Michelle :yummy: Pfeiffer) works as the personal assistant (NOT secretary) of Max Shreck (Christopher Walken), a millionaire who's suspiciously proposing to build a power plant in Gotham. After a Christmas speech by Shreck, nicknamed as "Gotham's Santa Claus", he becomes abducted by a havoc-wreaking gang of clowns, lead by a hideous presence, the Penguin (Danny DeVito) who blackmails Shreck so that the Penguin can become someone respectable. Selina Kyle discovers the secret behind Shreck's power plant, and he tries to kill her throwing her through a window. The attempt fails, and some cats come to "revive" Kyle, who disposes of her normal life, plus some of her sanity, and turns into Cat :yummy: woman. The Penguin stages a kidnapping and "stops" it, as to win public sympathy. Once done so, he learns that he comes from the Cobblepot family, his name being Oswald Cobblepot.
From there on, Shreck and Penguin scheme to use each other for their own plans, while Kyle/Catwoman entangles herself with Bruce Wayne... and Batman, while pursuing her own agenda as well.

I've liked this one more than the first installment. It is noticeable that Burton was given free rein in the whole work, and what only was a budding feeling of gothesque in the first movie, here it becomes the standard. The first shot of the Cobblepots pretty much summarises the whole Burton way of filming. There are quite a lot of Biblic references save for the obvious ones, and it's hard not to see the spectre of Edward Scissorhands (which came in 1990) floating around the Penguin, and the idea of Catwoman as somebody who "couldn't live with herself" is very appealing. It's a pity that she wasn't given more screen time in that role before her transformation.

As for the actors, Keaton delivers pretty much the same role than the prior film, as was to be expected. However, his Bruce Wayne is still unconvincing, and this time it's worse because he's given more time as Bruce Wayne than as the Caped Crusader. Bruce Wayne has his flaws, but Keaton portrays him as a damned weakling who doesn't know where his right hand is.
DeVito gives us a flamboyant Penguin, pretty much a fat and loudmouthed version of Edward Scissorhands. There are moments when you really love how he does it, and he still has the dangerous and unpredictable flair of a Batman rogue. I like this forsaken, unglamorous version better than the tuxedo-wearing image of the comics.
Pfeiffer was a really nice surprise. I thought she'd just come for the eye candy, but, while she gives some of that (though Burton seems to be fond of those damned horrible glasses and curly hairs) she delivers an authentic freak with no sense of self-esteem, no life worth mentioning and nothing to preserve her from absolute madness. Ironically, turning into Catwoman, while being another step into madness by creating a second personality inside her, saved the rest of her mind from the complete dangerous lunatic which she could have been thrown to.
Cheers as well for Christopher Walken, who manages to turn the typical "rich but normal victim" into a manipulative bastard of high caliber who toys with the "supervillains" almost at his leisure
Spoiler
, someone whose end is much more than well deserved
.

In general, a better film than the previous one. It is a purer vision of Batman by Burton, in one side, which manages to darken the mood more appropiately for a Batman movie. On the other side, the actors deliver an overall better performance, mainly by substituting the plain Vicky Vale and the under-developed Knox with full-fledged characters like Selina Kyle and Max Shreck. The plot is, as well, better presented and resolved than the last one.

Nice movie, recommendable any time.

_________________
СИРИЛИК АЛФАБЕТ ФТВ!!!
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Batman-The Movies
PostPosted: February 14th, 2010, 7:05 pm 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
Libertista wrote:
While I still need to find the one from the 60's, I'm not hurrying it as I still have stuff to watch.

Oh hell, you'll have seizures watching that crap...

Libertista wrote:
Image


Name order FAIL. :mrgreen:

Libertista wrote:
a helpless woman called Selina Kyle

More like "hapless"... :P2:

Libertista wrote:
his name being Oswald Cobblepot.

That name sounds like it came right from Charles Dickens...

Libertista wrote:
There are quite a lot of Biblic references save for the obvious ones

... which completely escaped me.
But of course Spanish people are all strictly Catholic so I guess you could explain? :lol:

Libertista wrote:
Bruce Wayne has his flaws, but Keaton portrays him as a damned weakling who doesn't know where his right hand is.

They exaggerated the "camouflage" part, that may be, but I think that Clark Kent is mot much different in his civilian disguise, so why not?

Libertista wrote:
Burton seems to be fond of those damned horrible glasses and curly hairs

But it hits the nail on the head, doesn't it?

Libertista wrote:
turning into Catwoman, while being another step into madness by creating a second personality inside her (...)

Which reminds me that I haven't encountered the Catwoman in the comics yet, with the exception of her tailing Bruce Wayne when he's trying to get his legs back in the later "Knightfall" chapters. I wonder inhowfar the movie and the comic are parallel in depicting her.

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Batman-The Movies
PostPosted: February 14th, 2010, 8:47 pm 
Offline
Lurker
User avatar

Joined: November 12th, 2009, 7:24 am
Posts: 69
Location: Берлин
Quote:
Oh hell, you'll have seizures watching that crap...
I had thought of not watching it altogether: camp beats me. But of course, if Bruce Wayne has gone through all that pain of his, a Batfan can swallow some achy movies too :booyah:

Quote:
Name order FAIL.

And not only that. He never sports a cigarrette tip in the movie, neither the monocle. In fact, when they give the tip to him he spits it inmediately (I presume for the sake of the rating).
Quote:
... which completely escaped me.
But of course Spanish people are all strictly Catholic so I guess you could explain?
:P2:
In fact, the Penguin summons the Exodus from time to time, most strikingly in his being thrown to the river inside his basket and his attempts to emulate the last of the Egyptian plagues against the wealthy of Gotham.

Quote:
They exaggerated the "camouflage" part, that may be, but I think that Clark Kent is mot much different in his civilian disguise, so why not?

Here it's a bit overdone. Batman tells Catwoman to "eat floor" while, later on, as Wayne, gets all frightened
Spoiler
about a gun that Selina intends to use against Shreck
. You don't maintain a huge company, an enormous amount of wealth, a secret identity, the ladies' favor AND your sanity (Keaton's Wayne is sane) without having at least a more imperious personality.
Quote:
Which reminds me that I haven't encountered the Catwoman in the comics yet, with the exception of her tailing Bruce Wayne when he's trying to get his legs back in the later "Knightfall" chapters. I wonder inhowfar the movie and the comic are parallel in depicting her.

Catwoman has been around since the forties, so you have a lot of stuff there. While Knightfall is a special occasion (Bruce is crippled and such), the standard Catwoman is called Selina Kyle, and she has a sweet spot for both Bruce Wayne and Batman, but she won't give up her burglar career, at least in the normal Earth. I recall one of the Infinite Earths where Wayne and Kyle were actually married and with a daughter.

_________________
СИРИЛИК АЛФАБЕТ ФТВ!!!
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Batman-The Movies
PostPosted: February 15th, 2010, 7:05 pm 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
Libertista wrote:
You don't maintain a huge company, an enormous amount of wealth, a secret identity, the ladies' favor AND your sanity (Keaton's Wayne is sane) without having at least a more imperious personality.

Well, not if you inherited the lot and if you have administrators who are as trustworthy as they are efficient.
But eventually he is not the softy that he appears to be in public - the caped crusader disguises himself as Bruce Wayne, and not vice versa. So I guess he runs his empire according to the rules of the market economy, with a tablespoon of higher ethics. :D

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Batman-The Movies
PostPosted: February 16th, 2010, 3:33 pm 
Offline
Lurker
User avatar

Joined: November 12th, 2009, 7:24 am
Posts: 69
Location: Берлин
Time for Batman Forever, the third installment, produced but not directed by Burton, but by Joel Schumacher.

Image

The movie begins with Batman (Val Kilmer) trying to stop the criminal Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones), the former District Attorney Harvey Dent who got maddened after the gang boss Maroni threw acid on his face. Two-Face destroys half of the face of the Statue of Liberty and manages to flee. From his side, the zany scientist Edward Nigma (Jim Carrey) confronts Bruce Wayne with a device which would shoot television waves onto people's brains. The device "raises too many questions" for Wayne, something which brings Nigma to madness and ends up with him killing his inmediate superior.
On his own side, Bruce starts to go out with the psychologist Chase Meridian (Nicole Kidman), who herself has grown fonder of the other B-man. He invites her to a circus where the Grayson family is performing. Two-Face appears, demanding that Batman face him, and leaves a bomb, killing the whole family except for the benjamin, Dick Grayson. Bruce takes responsibility for him, and while he's at Bruce's home he discovers his secret and manages to become his sidekick, Robin. Together they'll have to face the combined forces of Two-Face and Nigma, now called The Riddler.

Let's be sincere: regarding quality, it's a bungee jump from Returns, particularly the beginning. The main problem is the script and some director's choices. Edward Nigma is certainly credible as a flamboyant schemer, due to his inferiority complex, though the acting is deliberately silly. However, for the sake of the character, the plot, and for everyone's sake, Tommy Lee Jones shouldn't have appeared in this movie.

I've read that Warner had to pay out the actor who had done Harvey Dent in the first Batman, as he had put a clause to be Two-Face in the following movies. However, I think it was good for him not to be taken for the role. Two-Face is a friggin mook, someone who grins like an idiot, acts like an idiot and lets himself control by the Riddler like... well, what he is. He's got no development, you don't know why he's there, why he does what he does or how does he manage not to choke with his tongue while breathing, being so dumb as he is. He's by far the poorest rogue in the gallery (not having watched Batman and Robin), and I can understand what a relief it was for the fans to see Aaron Eckhart's performance in The Dark Knight (we'll cover that when the moment comes). I've got nothing against his henchwomen though, Schumacher knows what he does when he chooses babes :d^_^b:

Once finished my Two-face rant (in essence, you can cut him out of the movie and it wins a lot), and while I am not allowed to complain about Kidman (she's quite a fetish for me), I would like to point out that Dick Grayson leaves a lukewarm feeling in the watcher: it's good that he's portrayed as an uneducated asshole and the sympathy of Alfred for him, but the movie does not a good job in portraying the relationship inside the Dynamic Duo. I would have preferred to have Robin's creation at the beginning, so that the team dynamics would be more credible. That said, Robin is usually a pretty lobotomised folk, so it's good to see that he won some attitude in the movies.

About Kilmer, I adhere in general terms to what Bob Kane himself said: He's the best Batman. Mainly because he's the best Bruce Wayne. He does give the self-confident (sometimes even arrogant) wealthy bastard that, in my opinion, Wayne needed to be. His interaction with Chase Meridian in comparison to Keaton's the one with Vicky Vale or Selina Kyle shows this point very clearly. He's having fun with Chase, he's more confident. He's even confident enough to
Spoiler
flirt with the idea of leaving the Bat-identity, a point which didn't become too clear in the end either
.

In general, we have a just-watchable movie, which bears the dumbing down of one of the most brilliant rogues in the gallery (even the cartoons handle Harvey Dent with extreme care), a silly plot and many shortcomings (while I read a future director's cut could solve many of those points). On the other side, it gives us a great Bruce Wayne, an entertaining original love story with Meridian and... Sugar and Spice :mrgreen:

An OK movie, don't rush to see it.

_________________
СИРИЛИК АЛФАБЕТ ФТВ!!!
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Batman-The Movies
PostPosted: February 16th, 2010, 4:09 pm 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
I felt very appalled by the colors in this movie. It was like saying, "Hey! This is a comic adaptation for all you boneheads who might not know!" And the pits were yet to come...

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Batman-The Movies
PostPosted: February 16th, 2010, 6:38 pm 
Offline
Lurker
User avatar

Joined: November 12th, 2009, 7:24 am
Posts: 69
Location: Берлин
42317 wrote:
I felt very appalled by the colors in this movie. It was like saying, "Hey! This is a comic adaptation for all you boneheads who might not know!" And the pits were yet to come...

Speed Racer, the movie, won the bizarre-color contest. I really wonder about the effects of such color explosions and hammed-up acting in the intended target of children. Would they get stoned? Would they develop synesthesia?

_________________
СИРИЛИК АЛФАБЕТ ФТВ!!!
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Batman-The Movies
PostPosted: February 16th, 2010, 6:46 pm 
Offline
Major Contributor

Joined: July 6th, 2009, 4:06 pm
Posts: 1427
Location: Ocean's 14th
The one thing i truly loved about Batman Forever was Bruce coming to terms with the Batman identity. His speech at the end towards the Riddler and especially the words: "I'm not Batman because i HAVE to be... I'm Batman because i CHOOSE to be!!!" Sure, the murder of his parents ultimately turned him into the caped crusader but throughout the movie, he struggles with the dilemna of knowing he can't keep saving the city forever and that moment of realization at the end is in my mind, his way of saying that he accepts the mantle he placed on himself and he will keep being the hero he is for as long as it takes out of his own volition. The best thing about it is that his love interest Dr. Meridian understands that and in the end lets him go on being who he really is. Most other women would've probably said, "It's either me or the cape!", and considering how in the next movie, Julie Madison seemed to be that type who wanted to ground him, that's a rare quality in the women Bruce meets and develops connections with for real.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Batman-The Movies
PostPosted: February 19th, 2010, 5:41 pm 
Offline
Lurker
User avatar

Joined: November 12th, 2009, 7:24 am
Posts: 69
Location: Берлин
Batman and Robin... well, let's say... I have to take it in pieces. I can't swallow 2 hours on a row of... that. It could end up bringing a smile to my face :diss:

_________________
СИРИЛИК АЛФАБЕТ ФТВ!!!
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group